
>>m 



Political Situation 



>- i^i 



:^ 




THE 



Political Situation. 



A REPLY 



-BY— 



JULIAN S. SPENCE. 






Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1883, by F. C. Festner, . 
in the office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington. 




£*r 



The Political Situation. 



2>T-u.zn"ber 1. 



The venerable Horatio Seymour and the Hon. 
George S. Boutwell, in the North American Re- 
view iox February, 1883, asseverate and theorize on 
* 'The Political Situation". 

A perusal of the respective articles, at once dis- 
closes the political animus of the one, and the firm 
self-assured convictions of the other. The assever- 
ations of the one, approaching so closely the 
exhalations of passion, prejudice and disappoint- 
ment, scarcely rise above the ordinary newspaper 
tirade. The bold, frank, dispassionate conclusions 
of the other, evidence a hope that is not yet 
dead, which, it must be conceded, is always the 
better way to deal with unpropitious foreshadow- 
ings. 

Mr. Boutwell says: "The recent overthrow of 
the Republican party is not an exceptional event in 



4 

political affairs, nor need we infer therefrom that 
its days of power are past." 

Mr. Seymour says : "The result of this year's 
elections, (1882), have excited much comment. 
At first view they seemed to be due to the dissen- 
tions in the republican ranks, but on closer study 
their explanation is found to lie deeper ; it is a 
ground swell, of which all surface disturbances are 
effects, not causes. To get an understanding of 
this subject, it is necessary that we dismiss from 
our minds all partizan prejudices, for it concerns 
the organic principles of our Government, and de- 
mands a thoughtful consideration." 

These opinions show the opposite degrees of sig- 
nificance which these two political thinkers are 
inclined to attach to the late republican reverses 
throughout the country. 

According to the one, it is but little more than an 
ordinary affair, and that there is yet hope for the 
country. According to the other, it is an event of 
momentous impoi - t, involving the "organic princi- 
ples of our Government". 

It is however, that part of the article appearing 
under the signature of Mr. Seymour with which I 
have more particularly to do, and to which I am 
induced to offer this humble reply. *. 

The author having been so long out of politics, 
has had ample time for studious observation, and 



5 ; 

the maturing of a judgment presumably ripe for 
political thought. Whatever may have been his 
habits in respect to a close observation of the signs 
of the times, in their relation to the science of pol- 
itics, during these years of retirement, it is quite 
evident that he has not dismissed entirely from his 
mind, as he would have us infer, all "partizan 
prejudices," in the discussion of this question. 

Aside from a few general principles, and the 
statement of a few undeniable facts, his assertions 
in respect to the ti'ue causes of the present political 
situation, are mere nudas allcgationcs, which, to 
one whose whole life has been spent outside the 
pale of political dissentions, who has been a silent, 
though interested observer of the strifes and tur- 
moils of the contending elements, are not argu- 
ments of weight or importance. 

But, since the question "concerns the organic 
principles of our Government, and demands a 
thoughtful consideration," it is well that all parti- 
san prejudices be dismissed, and that it be met 
candidly and fairly, without aspersions on the one 
hand, or egotistical assumptions on the other — and 
least of all, criminations which may be unfounded, 
for no one knows better than the sober, political 
thinker that these are not arguments calculated to 



convince the reason, whatever influence they may 
otherwise have. 

Mr. Seymour's apprehended dangers to the Gov- 
ment are little varied from those of Thomas Jef- 
ferson, the father of Mr. Seymonr's political creed. 

A comparison of the two, in a single instance* 
will sufficiently demonstrate the similarity. Mr. 
Seymour says : 

"The American people are divided into two 
parties ; these grow out of the form of our Gov- 
ernment, and each is needed for its preservation. 
All agree that there is a division line between the 
powers of the General and State Governments. To 
enlarge unduly the powers of the States endangers 
the Union. To extend unduly the jurisdiction of 
Congress leads to corruption. * * * * * a 
feeling grew up that the stability of the General 
Government might be insured by giving to it larger 
powers. Jurisdiction was mistaken for strength. 
This sentiment was carried too far ; for, while 
State Rights have been unduly magnified, they still 
exist, and are as sacred as the rights of the Gen- 
eral Government." 

Thomas Jefferson was Secretary of State under 
Washington. During his second term, Alexander 
Hamilton was Secretary of the Treasury ; John 
Adams was Vice-President. Hamilton, Washing- 
ton and Adams were leaders of the Federal party ; 



7 
Thomas Jefferson was leader of the "Anties" or 
"Republican party. 

Hamilton and Jefferson became bitter political 
enemies, and the latter eventually proved to be a 
disturbing- element in the- administration. 

While there does not appear to have been any 
absolute rupture between him and the President, 
nevertheless, Mr. Jefferson was soon forced to 
retire from office, and it was on his return to his 
seat at Monticello that he wrote his famous letter 
to Mazzei, his Italian friend, in which he portrays 
the dangers to the Government, as he conceived 
them to be, as follows : 

"The aspect of our politics has wonderfully 
changed since you left us April 24, 1796. In 
place of that noble love of liberty and republican 
government which carried us triumphantly through 
the war, an anglican monarchical and aristocrat- 
ical party has sprung up, whose avowed object is 
to draw over us the substance, as they have already 
done the forms, of the British Government. * * 
* * Against us are the executive, the judiciary, 
two out of the three branches of legislati***-, all the 
officers of the Government, all who want to be 
officers, all timid men who prefer the calm of 
despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty ; British 
merchants and Americans trading on British capi- 
tals, speculators and holders in the banks and 
public funds, a contrivance invented for the pur- 



8 

pose of corruption, and for assimilating us in all 
things to the rotten, as well as to the sound parts 
<of the British model. 

It would give you a fever were I to name to you 
the apostates who have gone over to these heresies, 
men who were Samsons in the field and Solomons 
in the council, but who have had their heads shorn 
by the harlot of England. 

In short, we are likely to preserve the liberty we 
.have obtained only by unremitting labors and 
perils. But we shall preserve it ; and our mass 
and weight of wealth on the good side is so great 
as to leave no danger that force will ever be at- 
tempted against us. 

We have only to awake and snap the liliputian 
cords with which they have been entangling us 
•during the first sleep which succeeded our labors." 

Mr. Jefferson, at the time he penned this letter, 
was one of the "outs," as was also Mr. Seymour 
when he wrote this article. The former was 
sorely troubled with political nausea, superinduced 
by the great popularity and consequent success of 
his political rivals ; while the latter had been tossed 
about on the waves of the great sea of politics, until 
every aspiration of mind, every hope of his nature, 
were clouded over with misgivings, with doubts, 
with uncertainties. 

The same principle moved them both to throw 
out these warnings. The difference in circum- 



9 
stances surrounding) them, respectively, at the 
different epochs, accounts for the variance in the 
degree of intensity, with which their feelings, 
thoughts and apprehensions are portrayed ; and 
this constitutes the chief dissimilarity. 

It will be seen from this that the democratic cry 
of "danger'' is not new. Having its inception in 
the mind of the father of the party, it has become 
hereditary, and after this laps of a hundred and 
ten years it has lost none of its direfulness, but 
little of its vigor. No one will dispute the fact 
that the country, while it has continued to live, has 
prospered as well. This being so I am prompted 
— not that I deem it expedient — to give some slight 
attention to Mr. Seymour's reiterated cry of 
(danger, to be resolved whether there is any danger 
after all these years of growth and prosperity. 

I repeat then, Mr. Seymour says : 

" The American people are divided into two 
parties." He does not identify, in express terms, 
the personnel of these parties, but says : "These 
grow out of the form of our government ; each is 
needed for its preservation." In the next sentence 
we get an inkling. He continues : "All agree that 
there is a division line between the powers of the 
General and State Governments. To enlarge un- 
duly the powers of the States endangers the Union. 



IO 



To extend unduly the jurisdiction of Congress 
leads to corruption." 

Admitting these as general propositions, the 
secret tenor of the author's train of thought is here 
disclosed. The two great parties into which the 
American people are divided can be none other than 
the two grand divisions of people residing respect- 
ive!} 7 on either side of that imaginary line estab- 
lished in ante-bellum days and ascribed to "Mason 
and Dixon." That this is the author's ulterior 
meaning becomes a settled conviction when we 
consider the fact that he has, during a long politi- 
cal life been, by choice and affiliation, a member 
of the political party whose watchword has been 
from early the interminable cry of ''State Rights," 
that bugbear of constitutional government, nowhere 
agitated more bitterly, nowhere resultant of less 
important consequences. 

He says : "The division of our countrv into 
free and slave States, led the latter, out of fear 
of Federal interferance, to carry the doctrine of 
State Rights too far. Civil war was the result." 

In how far the present political situation is at- 
tributable to this ostensible truth it seems to be diffi- 
cult to discover; but a close observer of the political 
events of this country will not readily coincide in 
this statement of fact. 



II 



The doctrine of "State Rights,*' as much as it 
has been agitated in Congress and out of Congress 
by parties or individuals, never resulted in any- 
thing quite so serious as civil war. The most that 
can be said of it is, that it had an indirect tenden- 
cy, combined with other more potent forces, to 
precipitate that sanguinary result. 

I do not feel called upon to enumerate historical 
facts, but during the long time that the democratic 
party had control of national affairs in cannot be 
denied that the rights of States, and especially of 
the Southern States, were firmly established, as 
firmly as it was in their minds to establish them. 
These were fixed up under the administrations of 
Jefferson, Jackson, Polk, Pierce and Buchanan, 
until there was not a single right claimed by the 
States but was free from all possible Federal in- 
terence, with the exception, perhaps, of slavery, 
and of this, the democratic party was the greatest 
agitator, owing to its uncontrolable desire for the 
extension of slavery and the absorption of terri- 
tory. 

Time and again was the question of slavery 
settled to the satisfaction of the South, and as 
many times, by it, was the compact broken. Mr. 
Jefferson was opposed to slavery and desired its 
abolition. As early as 1779, in a code of laws re- 



12 

ported by him to the legislature of Virginia, he 
provided for the abolition of slavery. The provis- 
ion was stricken out, the State desired it otherwise. 
Again in Congress in 1784 he reported a bill for 
the government of all the national territory lying 
beyond the limits of the original thirteen States, 
and for the exclusion of slavery therefrom 

Congress refused to adopt the anti-slavery clause 
of this bill. The States desired the extension of 
slavery. And so it was extended, until it became 
an element of power in the land, before which 
government itself must succumb. 

There were expedients resorted to to quiet the 
fears of the contending elements and to secure to 
the States this right. 

The "Missouri Compromise" was to settle the 
question forever, no further encroachments were 
to be made upon it, no further extensions of its 
limits were to be suffered. This, as is well known, 
was a measure submitted by the friends of slavery 
and was satisfactory to them, and the great party 
across the line, helped them to thus definitely fix 
it for all time to come. The Federal Government 
in this certainly evinced no desire to interfere 
further with this State Right. 

The satisfaction, however, proved of momentary 
duration. Stephen A. Douglas brought forth his 



13 

hobby of "Squatter Sovereignty" and over-turned 
"Missouri Compromise," then followed "Border 
Ruffianism," " Bleeding Kansas," "John Brown," 
"Harper's Ferry," and "Civil War." 

The agitation of State Rights was a mere inci- 
dent, and although it is not yet dead, as Mr. Sey- 
mour avers, its potency was fairly spent and 
dissolved in the great struggle for slavery and its 
extension. 

Mr. Seymour comes now to dilate upon that 
other possible myth, "Centralization." A term 
vague enough in its application to the political 
possibilities of this country, and left even more 
vague by the author in his article. Perhaps I 
should leave it so as well. A word, however, 
seems to be necessary. 

To show that President Garfield entertained 
aspirations in this mythical direction, the author 
says: "He expressed his joy that power gravi- 
tated more and more toward the National Capital." 
It is not contended that these are the President's 
words, and the author has not deemed it expedient 
to give them, but instead cites a paragraph from 
an address delivered by a member of the Cabinet 
in 1880, as conclusive proof of the centralizing 
tendencies of the republican party. The para- 
graph is as follows : 



H 

"It must not be forgotten that this Government 
is no longer the simple machinery it was in the 
early days of the Republic. The bucolic age of 
America is over. ***** They are the 
interests of nearly fifty millions of people spread 
over an immense surface, with occupations of end- 
less variety and great magnitude, producing inter- 
ests so pushing, powerful, and so constantly 
appealing to the Government, rightfully or wrong- 
fully, that the requirements of statesmanship de- 
manded in this age are far different from those 
which sufficed a century <ago." 

It must be admitted that a centralization of 
power, such at least as defines the nature of mon- 
archical governments, endangers more or less the 
liberties of the people, and, of course, is inconsist- 
ent with the principles of republicanism. 

To guard against this admitted danger, all 
possible precautions were taken by the patriots of 
the revolution, and in the formation of the Consti- 
tution no loop-hole was left, whereat any terrorizing 
monster could creep in to destroy the fabric. 
Nothing more horrible than a bugbear has ever yet 
managed to effect an entrance, which, in its weak, 
harmless condition, has sufficed only to bestir the 
people to renewed watchfulness. • 

Such a thing as a dangerous centralization of 
power in this Republic or any movement approach- 



i5 

ing it must, in the very nature of things, be impos- 
sible in this country, and if Mr. Seymour has no 
argument or evidence tending to show this alarm- 
ing prospect, other than the paragraph above 
quoted, he may quiet his fears and allay his dis- 
trust, for it would be little short of absurdity to 
attempt to construe a holding of this doctrine from 
these words, by the author of them, or by the 
republican party. 

The Government of this Republic in the early 
days was indeed^ simple machinery. Beyond the 
circumscribed limits of the original thirteen Colo- 
nies, all was a vast wilderness, but which was the 
hope and promise of the infant Republic. 

From the period of Independence through the 
interval of Confederation to the days of Constitu- 
tion and first Presidents, we may trace the trans- 
piration of the "bucolic age of America." It 
needed the fostering care of tender, watchful 
hands. The development of internal resources 
would. come in time, but now, patriotism was the 
essential influence in imparting life and stability, 
until the experiment should establish the feasibility 
of Republican Constitutionalism. v 

To these patriots the term "centralization'' was 
no vague term ; they knew and realized its import, 
had tasted its fruits, hence their jealous resentment 



i6 

. of all encroachments in that direction. The per- 
fecting of the fabric of Constitutional Government 
was peculiarly the work of these patriots ; the 
prime interests of the people centered there. This 
once accomplished, however, the Republic came 
naturally out of its swaddling clothes, and Govern- 
ment itself found something to do in protec,tinp- 
and advancing the new and growing interests of 
the people. The mission of the nurses had ended. 
The "bucolic age" was over; mighty industries 
demanded attention ; development of vast natural 
resources needed encouragement ; commerce and 
new and complicated international relationships, 
demanded a different stamp and type of statesman-^ 
ship than that which had nursed into life the new 
Republic. If there is centralization in this, it can- 
not, in the nature of things, be avoided. 

To contrast these sentiments with the patriotic 
utterances of Washington, as Mr. Seymour is pleased 
to do, for the purpose of illustrating the proposi- 
tion that the republican party is gravitating in 
principle toward a dangerous centralization of 
power, is to fail utterly in the attempt. 

Washington, perhaps, more than any other man, 
in the days of revolution and government making, 
had reason to declare against this dangerous power 
and all its attendant encroachments. 



i7 

No man in public or political life was ever more 
unjustly charged, and no man ever descended to 
lower and baser methods to injure an opponent 
than did Jefferson to break down and smirch the 
character of President Washington. This while 
he was Secretary of State, and assimilating the 
character of a friend. I refer thus frequently to 
Jefferson with some satisfaction, inasmuch as Mr. 
Seymour's political party with much pride and 
some justice refers to him as a model of democratic 
virtue, integrity and reform. I have no disposition 
to be unjust to the memory of this great and bril- 
liant statesman, and I refer to him only as I deem it 
necessary to illustrate the motive of his eminent 
political follower. 

Whatever may have been the motive of Mr. 
Seymour in referring to the public expressions of 
Washington in respect to his patriotism, the force 
of his quotation is lost entirely, when the motive 
of Washington in giving publicity to these expres- 
sions is known and understood. 

While yet leading the continental armies through 
the storms of battle, through alternating defeats 
and victories, before government was established, 
and when no one but a malignant enemy or jealous 
rival could assume the hardihood to impugn his 
motives, a charge, as base as groundless, was se- 



cretly promulgated to cripple his influence and 
destroy his deserved popularity. A charge that he 
was incompetent, coupled with dictatorial aspira- 
tions. The fact is, it was a plot to supplant him. 
Imagine the burning indignation of Virginia's 
statesman and patriot, Patrick Henrey, on receiving 
the following anonymous letter disclosing the plot : 

Yorktown, Jan. 12, 1778. 
Dear Sir: 

"The common danger of our country first 
brought you and me together. I recollect with 
pleasure the influence of your conversation and 
eloquence upon the opinions of this country in the 
beginning of the present controversy. You first 
taught us to shake off our idolatrous attachment to 
royalty, and to oppose its encroachments upon our 
liberties with our very lives. By these means you 
saved us from ruin. The independence of America 
is the off-spring of that liberal spirit of thinking 
and acting which followed the destruction of the 
spectres of kings, and the mighty power of Great 
Britain But, sir, we have only passed the Red 
Sea. A dreary wilderness is still before us, and 
unless a Moses or a Joshua are raised up in our 
behalf we must perish before we reach the prom- 
ised land. We have nothing to fear from our 
.enemies on the way. General Howe, it is true, 
has taken Philadelphia, but he has only changed 
his prison. His dominions are bounded on all 
sides by his out-sentries. America can only be 



J 9 

undone by herself. She looks up to her councils 
and arms for protection, but alas ! what are they? 
Her representation in Congress dwindled to only 
twenty-one members — her Adams, her Wilson, her 
Henry are no more among them. Her councils 
weak, and partial remedies applied constantly for 
universal diseases. Her army, what is it? A 
major-general, belonging to it, called it a few days 
ago, in my hearing, a mob. Discipline unknown 
or wholly neglected. The quartermaster and com- 
missary's departments, filled with idleness, ignor- 
ance and peculation; our hospitals crowded with 
six thousand sick, but half provided with neces- 
saries or accomodations, and more dying in them 
in one month than perished in the field during the 
whole of the last campaign. The money depre- 
ciating, without any effectual measures being taken 
to raise it ; the country distracted with the Don 
Quixote attempts to regulate the price of provisions ; 
an artificial famine created by it, and a real one 
dreaded from it. The spirit of the people failing 
through a more intimate acquaintance with the 
causes of our misfortune, many submitting daily to 
General Howe, and more wishing to do it, only to 
avoid the calamities which threaten our country. 
But is our case desperate? by no means. We 
have wisdom, virtue and strength eno' to save us, 
if the)' could be called into action. The northern 
army has shown us what Americans are capable of 
doing witha general at their head. The spirit of 
the southern army is no way inferior to the spirit 



20 

of the northern. A Gates, a Lee, or a Conway, 
would in a few weeks render them an irresistible 
body of men. The last of the above officers has 
accepted of the new office of inspector-general of 
our army, in order to reform abuses ; but the re- 
medy is only a palliative one. In one of his letters 
to a friend he says, "a great and good God hath 
decreed America to be free — or the ****** 
and weak counsellors would have ruined her long 
ago." You may rest assured of each of the facts 
related in this letter. The author of it is one of 
your Philadelphia friends. A hint of his name, if 
found out by the handwriting, must not be men- 
tioned to your most intimate friend. Even the 
letter must be thrown in the fire. But some of 
its contents ought to be made public in order to 
awaken, enlighten and alarm our country. I rely 
upon your prudence, and am, dear sir, with my 
usual attachment to you and to our beloved inde- 
pendence, yours sincerely." 

His Excellency, P. HENRY. 

Patrick Henry was a strong, uncompromising 
friend of Washington, and he knew the charge to 
be, as unfounded as the plot was base, and he hes- 
itated not a moment in appraising his friend of the 
scheme on foot to destroy him. 

Washington returned the following replies ; 

Valley Forge, March 27, 1778. 
Dear Sir : 

About eight days past I was honoured with your 



21 

favour of the 20th ultimo. Your friendship, sir, 
in transmitting^ me the anonymous letter you had 
received, lays me under the most grateful obliga- 
tions ; and, if anything could give a still further 
claim to my acknowledgements, it is the very polite 
and delicate terms in which you have been pleased 
to make the communication. 

I have ever been happy in supposing that I held 
a place in your esteem, and the proof of it you 
have afforded on this occusion makes me peculiar- 
ly so The favourable light in which you hold me 
is truly flattering, but I should feel much regret if 
I thought the happiness of America so intimately 
connected with my personal welfare, as you so 
obligingly seem to consider it. All I can say is, that 
she has ever had, and I trust she ever will have my 
honest exertions to promote her interest. I cannot 
hope that my services have been the best, but my 
heart tells me they have been the best that I could 
render. 

That I have erred in using the means in my 
power for accomplishing the objects of the arduous, 
exalted station with which I am honoured, I cannot 
doubt ; nor do I wish my conduct to be exempted 
from the reprehension it may deserve. Error is 
the portion of humanity, and to censure it, whether 
committed by this or that public character, is the 
prerogative of freemen. * * * * This is not 
the only secret, insidious attempt that has been 
made to wound my reputation. There have been 
others equally base, cruel and ungenerous ; because 



22 

conducted with as little frankness, and proceeding 
from views, perhaps, as personally interested." 
I am, dear sir, &c, 

GEORGE WASHINGTON. 
To his Excellency, Patrick Henry, Esq., 
Governor of Virginia. 



Camp, March 28, 1778. 
Dear Sir : 

"Just as I was about to close my letter of yes- 
terday, your favour of the fifth inst. came to hand. 
I can only thank you again in the language of the 
most undissembled gratitude for your friendship, 
and assure you, the indulgent disposition which 
Virginia in particular, and the States in general, 
entertain towards me gives me the most sensible 
pleasure. The approbation of my country is what 
I wish ; and as far as my abilities and opportuni- 
ty will permit, I hope I shall endeavour to deserve 
it. It is the highest reward to a feeling mind ; and 
happy are they who so conduct themselves as to 
merit it. 

The anonymous letter with which you were 
pleased to favour me, was written by * * * * 

so far as I can judge from the similitude of hands. 

* * * * 

My caution to avoid everything that could injure 
the service prevented me from communicating, ex- 
cept to a very few of my friends, the intrigues of a 
faction which I knew was formed against me, since 
it might serve to publish our internal dissentions : 



23 

but their own restless zeal to advance their views 
has too clearly betrayed them, and made conceal- 
ment on my part fruitless. I cannot precisely 
mark the extent of their views ; but it appears, in 
general, that General Gates was to be exalted on 
the ruin of my reputation and influence. This I am 
authorized to say from undeniable facts in my own 
possession, from publications, the evident scope of 
which could not be mistaken, and from private de- 
tractions industriously circulated * * * * , 
it is commonly supposed, bore the second part in 
the cabal ; and General Conway, I know, was a 
very active and malignant partisan ; but I have 
good reason to-believe that their machinations have 
recoiled most sensibly upon themselves. 
I am, dear sir, &c, 

GEORGE WASHINGTON. 
His Excellency, Patrick Henry, Esq., 
Governor of Virginia. 
Mr. Seymour, it will be seen, has not applied 
the true test. Washington's purity of thought and 
character, jealous purpose, and withal, his intense 
patriotism, would not have given him occasion or 
thought to declaim with such fervency against a 
doctrine so pernicious, but for the fact that mer- 
cenaries, in the interest of a rival, had sought to 
raise up this stigma with the hope of fastening it 
upon him. But this is not all ; the failure of this 
cruel scheme not only induced him to be always on 



•2 4 

his guard, but a few years later, when a generous 
public vindicated his character by making him the 
first chief executive, followed the futile attempt of 
Mr. Jefferson above referred to. 

He established the National Gazette and pro- 
cured a Frenchman to conduct it. It is said the 
leading article savored strongly of Jefferson's style, 
and they attacked bitterly Washington, Hamilton 
and their measures. It is a matter of history that 
Jefferson accused Washington and Hamilton, and 
the Federals generally, of seeking to destroy the 
Constitution, calling them monocrats, implying 
monarchical aspirations, and even more, one man 
power. This we have seen in his Mazzei letter. 

Washington complained of these attacks, not of 
the attacks on him personally; these he despised, 
but that every act of the Government should be 
thus abused, was as uncalled for as it was ungen- 
erous. Jefferson, however, justifies his conduct 
by saying: "His paper has saved our Constitu- 
tion, which was galloping fast into monarchy, and 
has been checked by no means so powerfully as 
that paper." 

I repeat, no man in public life in this country 
ever had more potent reasons for proclaiming his 
patriotism and republicanism than General Wash- 
ington. Not, let it be understood, that he for a 



25 

moment feared the managers of government would 
ever permit it to take on the forms of monarchy to 
the destruction of the Constitution, but for the 
reason that he himself had been vilely accused of 
an attempt to pull down that which he had labored 
so arduously to build up : the fabric of the Con- 
stitution. 

Again Mr. Seymour says, he has "no intention 
to impeach the patriotism of those who hold opin- 
ions which grew out of the excitements of the 
civil war, but charges, that in their eagerness to 
extend the jurisdiction of the General Government 
they went too far, and exposed the country to un- 
forseen dangers." 

He then attempts to make this clear by a review 
of the events of the last few years, and in doing so 
makes this wholesale charge. 

"The increase in the revenues of the Government 
has given to Congressmen vast sums of money to 
vote away for various purposes. Much is used for 
the payment of the public debt ; much is voted 
away for the benefit of those who have schemes 
which they wish to have executed at the public 
cost. This draws from all parts of the Union 
shrewd and unscrupulous men who seek a share 
of the land or money given away." 

This is nothing but a reiteration, and in no bet- 
ter language, of the charge found in nearly every 



26 

issue of the partisan press throughout the country. 
The charge, if true, establishes a glaring abuse of 
public confidence and of political freedom. But 
whether true or not, coming from a responsible 
source, it is taken up kindly by the enemies of the 
Republic and magnified into colossal proportions. 

To charge that vast sums of national revenues 
are voted away for private gain of unscrupulous 
men, is to charge at once knavery, -perjury and 
crime in the wholesale on members of congress ; a 
serious charge to make even for an irresponsible 
newspaper. 

Mr. Seymour in writing this undoubtedly had in 
mind the much discussed "River and Harbor 
Bill," inasmuch as that has been denominated the 
"greatest steal" on record. The president signal- 
ized his term of office by his veto of this bill, and 
those members who voted against it have endeared 
themselves to the hearts of the people, while those 
who favored the measure, no matter how honestly, 
have earned the reproaches of an all wise (?) and 
impartial public. (?) 

Admitting this charge to be true, we naturally 
turn to look for the cause ; Mr. Seymour has not 
mentioned it, but the conclusion is irresistible from 
the admitted premises. 

The people have elected knaves and rascals, yea, 



2 7 

more, villains, to represent them in the national 
legislature. A man must be all this, who so far 
disregards his natural predisposition to honesty 
and virtue, not to say his oath, and clearly defined 
public duties. 

The author charges much of the corruption to 
the powerful lobby at Washington. 

Lobbies partake something of the nature of the 
ubiquitous ; they are omnipresent, and, it may as 
well be conceded, well nigh omnipotent. They 
seem to be a necessary evil, ingrown with the in- 
stitutions of the country. But suppose we grant the 
power of the lobby and concede, though, with 
reluctance, the depravity of Congress, we have 
conceded then Mr. Seymour's idea of the political 
situation. Now what is the cure for all this? He 
says : "All thoughtful men in each party see that 
this must be corrected, that we must go back to 
the teachings of the Constitution, and that a strict 
construction of the powers of Congress will leave 
less opportunity for corruption." 

Let me ask, will a strict construction of the 
powers of Congress prevent people from electing 
rogues and rascals to places of power and trust? 
Will the teachings of the Constitution open a way 
for dispersing the lobby, and for keeping unscru- 



28 

pulous men at home, and shut out congressmen 
from their contaminating' influence? 

If the teachings of the Constitution have been 
departed from, or if the powers of Congress have 
been unduly enlarged, those are errors which must, 
in the very nature of things, correct themselves, 
and while I believe the results of the elections of 
1882 were not due to local causes or controversies, 
they concern fundamental principles which are 
firm and lasting, and any man or party of men, 
who may attempt to traverse these principles, will 
meet obstacles that cannot be overcome. 

The great balance wheel of republicanism, set 
turning in '76, continues to revolve with inappre- 
ciable sway, — thanks to Jefferson and the National- 
Gazette; "Centralization" cannot interfere with 
it, not so much even as "State Rights." 

Changes may be made in the woof of the weav- 
ing, but these shall be effected' in the ordinary 
way, and in the manner pointed out by the Consti- 
tution. Centralization, usurpation, or secession 
will ever be ineffectual. Already in the second 
century of the Republic the success of the experi- 
ment is firmly established. 

Political corruption is always lamentable, but 
this, like many other evils, will finally suggest its 
own cure ; but, whatever may be said of the pres- 



20. 

ent political situation, the fundamental principles 
of this Government cannot be shaken ; they have 
been tested by foes within and foes without, and 
thereby strengthened in their strength. The pres- 
ent French Republic has lived but little more than 
a decade, and fears in some quarters have been 
entertained for its safety, in view of the recent 
manifesto of Prince Napoleon. But one who has 
some knowledge of the nature and capabilities of 
the French Republic — Ex-Minister Washburne — 
gives it as his deliberate judgment that, "no existing 
hostile influence can encompass the Republic's 
downfall. 

Gambetta's death has encouraged adventurers, 
but their secret scheming and public prating will 
be wholly fruitless." 

If this be true of the French Republic thus early 
in its career when it has entered upon its second 
century, it will be absurd to talk of centralization 
and monarchy. 

History proves that our Republic has never 
lacked in patriots. In her time of need her de- 
fenders have been found in the cool judgments 
and brawny arms of a liberty loving people. 

From this examination of the question, and of 
Mr. Seymour's article, I am not inclined to regard 
the "Political Situation" as at all momentous. 



30 

Granting the deplorable condition of party politics, 
I am sensible of no violation of the principles of 
Government or of the teachings of the Constitution, 
such as to warrant this "hue and cry" forthe safety 
of the country. That principles have been violated 
and the more sacred teachings of the Constitution 
ignored, cannot be denied, but I have a stronger 
faith in the stability of our institutions and in the 
Republic bequeathed us by the fathers of the Rev- 
olution than to suppose for a moment that any 
political party can overthrow them at its will, and 
my faith in these is doubly strengthened since the 
attempt of 1861. Whatever may be the portent 
of the political signs which called forth this article 
from Mr. Seymour, I would not regard the situa- 
tion with his mournful misgivings, but rather with 
the hope of Mr. Boutwell, admitting and pointing 
out the errors of parties, that they may be correct- 
ed with the least possible disturbance. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



013 785 803 4, 



